JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,43,000/- by order dated 18.03.1996. 2. The facts, in brief leading to filing this petition can be culled out as under: On 06.07.1990 at about 7:00 p.m. the deceased Jashwatsingh was walking on the highway nr. P.W.D. Guest house. At that time the insured Motor Truck No.MTS 7338, driven by respondent No.4 hit the deceased, who died on the spot after suffering grievous injuries. The age of the deceased at the time of his death was 45 years. His heirs have claimed compensation on the basis of his having earned Rs. 2000/- per month from Ambika Mills and Rs. 1000/- per month from agricultural income. It was averred in the judgment that the driver did not have driving licence. 3. The appellant herein prefers this Appeal to the extent of Rs. 1,93,000/-, on the following grounds: 1. The judgment and order are erroneous, wrong and illegal both on facts as well as in law. 2. The learned Tribunal did not appreciate the facts involved in the case and did not consider the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. 3. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the deceased himself was walking negligently on the High way. 4. The learned Tribunal has assess the income of the deceased on a very higher side. 5. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the insured had committed breach of specified conditions of Insurance Policy by allowing the vehicle to be driven by the so-called driver, not having the Driving Licence. 6. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased without any supporting evidence. 7. The learned Tribunal has wrongly applied higher multiplier to the incorrectly assessed income. 4. On the above-mentioned grounds, the appellants have prayed that; A. The impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.1996 made and passed in MACP No.140 of 1991 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad be quashed and set aside and this appeal be allowed and in the interest of justice, the MACP may be dismissed with cost; Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. 5. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,43,000/- with running interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till its realisation and costs. The Opponent No.3 Insurance Company (petitioner herein) was directed to deposit the awarded amount within ten weeks from the date of this Award. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were directed to deposit Rs. 2,25,000/-, Rs. 1,25,000 and Rs. 30,000/- respectively in any nationalised Bank of their choice for a period of six years with a condition that no loan or withdrawal shall be permitted without prior permission of the Tribunal. However, all the petitioners were entitled to get periodical interest accrued thereon on the awarded amount in cash. 5.1 The Tribunal has relied upon the order passed in 1995 ACJ 1170 SC and decided to take multiplier of 17. Therefore, the dependency loss would come to Rs. 24000/- x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000/-. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 4,08,000/- under the head of loss to the Estate. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Tribunal has committed an erred by taking multiplier of 17 in the present case, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service v. Manekben, Wd/o. Vithalbhai Damaji Chavda & Ors. Reported in 1981 GLR 575 , wherein it is held that; "In cases of those victims of accidents who were in thirties or forties when their lives cut short by unfortunate accidents, multiplier of 12 to 15 with outer limit of 1 was found to be quite a proper multiplier to be adopted in capitalizing the dependency benefits so as to work out just compensation to be made payable to the defendants of such victims." 7. Therefore, in the present case, age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of accident, so multiplier of 15 is proper. Therefore, the dependency loss would come to Rs. 24000/- x 15 = Rs. 3,60,000/- under the head of loss to the Estate. So, amount of Rs. 48,000/- will be reduced. 7.1 Apart from that, the remaining amount awarded by the Tribunal under other different head are just and proper and no interference is called for. 7.2 The respondents are entitled to claim following amounts by way of compensation: Rs. 3,60,000/- for loss to the Estate. Rs. 20,000/- for loss of expectation of life. 48,000/- will be reduced. 7.1 Apart from that, the remaining amount awarded by the Tribunal under other different head are just and proper and no interference is called for. 7.2 The respondents are entitled to claim following amounts by way of compensation: Rs. 3,60,000/- for loss to the Estate. Rs. 20,000/- for loss of expectation of life. Rs. 5,000/- for funeral and other expenses. Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium. Rs. 3,95,000/- in all. 7.3 Therefore, respondents are entitled for Rs. 3,95,000/-. The remaining amount will be paid to the appellant insurance company by the respondents. The appeal is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.